This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 24 November 2014, At: 13:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development andCarePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Perspectives on children'sdevelopment in art andtheir responses to paintingsJanet Fallowfield aa LondonPublished online: 28 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Janet Fallowfield (1986) Perspectives on children'sdevelopment in art and their responses to paintings, Early Child Developmentand Care, 24:1-2, 17-41, DOI: 10.1080/0300443860240102

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443860240102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Perspectives on children's development inart and their responses to paintings

JANET FALLOWFIELDLondon

(Received November 10, 1985)

INTRODUCTION

This paper is concerned with children's development in artisticrepresentation. In order to place the discussion in full prespec-tive the historical context will be focused on briefly in order toprovide a background of art educational practice over the pastcentury. The various perspectives taken by prominent theoristswill then be reviewed and compared in two groups; first, thosetheorists emphasizing the affective aspect and second, thoseemphasizing the cognitive. These psychological trends will thenbe evaluated in the light of their contributions to present-day arteducational practice, in the concluding summaries to eachsection. The final section of the paper explores the implicationsof various empirical investigations of children's responses topaintings.

DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN'S ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION

Background

It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that seriousattention could be said to have been paid to children's art.

Early Child Development and Care

1986, Vol. 24, pp. 17-410300-4430/86/2402-0017 $18.50/0

© Gordon and Breach,Science Publishers, Inc. 1986

Printed in Great Britain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

18 J. FALLOWFIELD

Interestingly, the studies of parent-psychologists, for example(Luquet, 1927), contributed greatly to the development of thisserious attitude. Such studies took the form of descriptiveaccounts of developmental changes in children's drawings andtheir value lay in the fact that they demonstrated the existence ofa sequential development of stages, from the scribbling to the"representational" stages of childhood. In the first decades of thecentury there was the burgeoning movement towards child-centred education, promoted by such "educationalists" asFroebel (1900), Montessori (1907) and Cizek (1912). Alongsidethis "liberalization" of education there was a parallel in theworld of "art" itself. The "modern" movement in art wasemerging and facets of it, such as Expressionism, Cubism andSurrealism, came to be accepted as "styles" during this period. Itwas against such a backdrop of "liberalism" in the art andeducational scene that the scenario was set for those theoriststhat advocated and promoted the affective trend.

The Affective Trend

Cizek (1912) in Vienna, carried out practical experiments in artteaching. He professed to offer children no instruction untilasked, desiring creative expression to come from within the childwhich was then facilitated by the teacher's sympathy andunderstanding:

I teach children art by not teaching at all in the accepted sense (Viola,1942, p. 44)

The first three stages in the development of children's art asdiscerned by Cizek are:

scribbling and smearingrhythm of spirit and handabstract—symbolic stage (Egypt)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART 19

Francesca Wilson (1921) wrote of Cizek: "the age he loved mostwas from one to seven" and the three stages outlined aboverepresent that particular age group. Cizek used the term childart to refer to the drawings and paintings of children aged fromone to seven:

to children who are below the age when they begin to analyse what they seeaccording to adult notions of accuracy and detail. (Field, 1973, p. 140)

In fact, Cizek stated:

People make a great mistake in thinking of child art merely as a step to adultart. It is a thing in itself, quite shut off and isolated, following its own laws(Wilson, 1921; quoted by Viola, 1942, p. 63)

However, it would be wrong to conclude that Cizek left childrento work alone; he, somewhat paradoxically, believed thatchildren needed help and guidance if they were to attain successin expressive imagemaking. Field (1973) makes the point thatViola's (1942) records show that, in fact, Cizek did a "good dealof precise instruction". This, of course, illustrates the differencein the conception of art "teaching" over the years. It is possibleto discern a move away from the original didactic mode of arteducation towards a more child-centred approach.

Dewey, viewing schools in the 1880's and 1890's, thought thatthey were pervaded by a formalism that was inappropriate formeaningful learning. In the schools children were viewed asminiature adults and their education consisted almost entirely ofbookish instruction, the content of which was unconnected withthe lives of the children. Dewey came to conceive of education asa process of expanding human intelligence and thereby increas-ing its capacity to "experience". He took an holistic view of thechild and he theorized that children developed in and throughinteraction with the environment. In order to best promote this,he maintained that children needed freedom in order to exercise

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

20 J. FALLOWFIELD

their intelligence on problems that were meaningful to them.Dewey's concern for the uniqueness of the child and theimportant role played within education by the child's ownexperience led to the growth of a movement which heldself-expression and non-interference by the teacher as being ofpivotal importance. Dewey's thinking had a major influence onart education at this period in that the prior concern with correctdrawing, picture study and hand-eye coordination was nowshifted towards an emphasis on unlocking the creative capacitiesof children. In fact, "creativity" rapidly became one of arteducation's major organizing ideas. Progressives writing aboutart education (Boas, 1924; Cane, 1931; Mathias, 1932) took theconcept of role of creativity in the education of the childgenerally. They claimed that art held the key to unlocking thecreative capacities lying dormant in the child and moreimportantly, once developed, these abilities could be applied toareas other than the arts.

the teaching of art became an instrumentality for creative development inall walks of life; it was to be a process-oriented activity which was to have asone of its major goals the development of children's creative thinking."Creative self expression" was soon to become the watchword of the new arteducation that emerged during this period. (Eisner & Ecker 1966 p. 9)

Lowenfeld (1947), the Austrian art educator, held influentialviews about the nature of the development of creativity withinthe child. In addition to advocating freedom for the child andnon-intervention by the teacher and respect for the sequence ofdevelopmental stages, Lowenfeld maintained that creativity wasinnate and emerged organically with development. The teacherdid have a part to play in this scheme in that they shouldpromote this natural unfolding by keeping out "damaginginfluences". One is led to ponder on the possible nature of these"damaging influences." Within art education, there were thosewho perceived of the relationship between the child and the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART 21

unconscious needs and desires underlying behaviour. In thisframe of reference the visual arts could be viewed as serving as aform of release mechanism, for those frustrations and tensionswhich could not be articulated through discursive knowledge.Creativity, Lowenfeld maintained, "is an instinct we primarilyuse to solve and express life's problems". (Lowenfeld, 1947;p. 69) Lowenfeld was primarily concerned with the creative andmental growth of the child and he saw art as a vehicle forpromoting this growth. His philosophy was encompassed in theview that for the development of a healthy personality it wasimportant that a proper balance be kept between emotional andintellectual growth.

Learning that is the acquisition of knowledge stands almost exclusively in thefocus of education. It is just as important for the child to gain freedom inexpression as it is for him to get more knowledge.

(Lowenfeld, 1947, p. 65)

However, it is a moot point as to whether this balance waskept, in Lowenfeld's programme. At the same time as acknow-ledging the need for outside stimulation, when he advisedteachers to evoke children's memories of real-life experiences as asource of content, Lowenfeld warned against the "damaginginfluences" of adult artistic influences and copying. He had noplace for observational drawing in his programme. It could bemaintained that in so doing he was omitting rich sources ofartistic stimulation and experiences.

In summary, the theories of Cizek, Dewey and Lowenfeldwere all very influential in the field of revolutionizing arteducation in the first half of the century. All can be considered asrepresenting the affective trend, for all placed great emphasis onself-expression and creativity. To an extent all displayed anholistic view of the child in that the child was of paramountimportance; education should be "tailored" for the child, not the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

22 J. FALLOWFIELD

child "tailored" for education. It is the "process" of the activitythat is emphasized, not the product. Overt instruction was to bekept to a minimum and the child's own experiences shouldassume maximum importance instead. Whether, and to whatdegree, these theories succeeded in their stated aims is a matterfor conjucture. However, whilst it can be observed that bothCizek and Lowenfeld formulated sequences of children's de-velopmental stages in art, it could be maintained that bothlacked a cognitive basis for their theories. There is, as Smith(1982) points out, with reference to Lowenfeld's theory, "adescriptive account of imagery and reference to emotional needsand benefits" but very "little mention of cognitive processes ortheory".

The Cognitive Trend

The drawbacks of over-emphasis on the affective aspect areevident when current thought in contemporary developmentalpsychology is examined. In effect, current theory holds thatdevelopment is the result of interactions between "geneticallyprompted structures" in the child and stimulation from theenvironment. Therefore, in order for children to developnormally stimulation is believed to be required. It could beargued that in Lowenfeld's programme, where children aredeprived of adult artistic influence and drawing from observa-tion in the environment is discouraged, children could lackknowledge and skill in some areas. It is possible for adult artisticinfluences to be beneficial, provided that there is a general theoryof cognitive-affective development in art to provide a soundbasis. The point is that children strive to make sense of the worldand making art is one way in which children can create "orderout of chaos" as it were. Smith (1982) maintains that: "thechildren's goal is order". She goes on to conclude that "...the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART 23

arts serve a particular psychological function: to capture andembody meanings that bridge thought and feeling." In order toexamine the processes involved in the children's striving tocreate meaning it is necessary to discuss the nature ofsymbolization, which refers to events in which people use somemeans to call to mind nonpresent persons, objects, or events. Artis one mode in which symbolization can take place. Smithdifferentiated three different components of knowledge used informing a symbol: "the symbolizer's knowledge of the material,of the referent, and of the possible modes of correspondencebetween them." She argues that in order to understandchildren's symbolization, it is necessary to study the develop-ment of all three components.

The first component, understanding the nature of materials, isone to which relatively little attention has been paid. In order tomanipulate materials into forms and patterns to produce a workof art, it is necessary for children to learn something about thenature and properties of materials before they can use them insymbols. Although it appears that perceptual response to visualproperties such as shape and colour is present very early, aschildren grow their work demonstrates an orderly progression ofvisual properties from simple to ever more complex. Forexample, Piaget and Inhelder (1956) suggest that the origin ofdrawing is the rhythmic pattern of the child's movement and thetangle of lines so produced and within this scribbling iscontained the fundamental elements of drawing from whichmore complex concepts will be developed. Smith (1982)concludes that it is clear that children teach themselves theperformance skills and motor sequences required to createcontrolled forms of visual graphic elements through "manipula-tive experimentation with materials".

The second component, is concerned with the creation ofvisual symbols, and the third with the expressive and objective

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

24 J. FALLOWFIELD

modes of correspondence. It appears that the representationalshaping of art materials takes place during the third and fourthyears following the development of basic understandings ofmaterials. A common early planned symbol is that of "a person"and a very common form of it is the "tadpole man", a circle withtwo descending lines. Piaget and Inhelder (1959) maintain thatthe trunk is omitted because of the child's inability to synthesize;this theory focuses on the child's conception of the referent.Arnheim (1954) considers that the circle represents head andbody in one shape, standing for the "whole figure". Goodnow(1977) studied the influence of the children's rules of sequencingand layout. Both Arnheim and Goodnow focus on the mode ofcorrespondence between material and referent. Smith (1982)interprets the "tadpole man" in the light of the influence of thechild's prior knowledge of circular designs on the configurationand she focuses on the child's conception of the material. Itwould be logical to conclude that the most viable interpretation7

would be one which took all three components of symbolformation into account. This example illustrates the importanceof attending to the child's gradually evolving understanding ofexperiences of objects and events because this provides informa-tion about referents upon which the child draws in forming asymbol. The question then arises of how changes in referencepoints come about. Piaget and Inhelder (1956) argue thatchildren drawing chimneys at 900 to a roof reflect a generalaspect of intellectual development rather than simply an isolatedfeature of drawing. Piaget and Inhelder believe that childrenwho do this are not yet able to use an overall point of referencefor all the units in a drawing, but rely on one unit as a referencepoint for an adjacent one. Children can only consider a moredistant reference point when they can cope with double ormultiple relationships; for example, a chimney related to bothroof and ground. Further, this ability to cope with multiple

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART 25

relationships depends upon the growth of, in Piagetian terminol-ogy, "operations". Goodnow (1977) sums the matter up thus:"In a sense, the eye can keep only one relationship in focus: themind has to take care of the other." (p. 18)

Goodnow (1977) maintains that sequence is a very useful toolin helping us understand children's work. She focuses attentionon the production or invention of equivalents which sheconsiders to be the area of most interest for extension tochildren's drawings. It is fruitful to look at children's inventionsof equivalents, at the novel classifications they produce or at thenew words they invent. In this way children could be said to beactively involved in their learning, extending rules rather thantaking a passive imitatory role. This promotes the view thatchildren actively construct their own views of the world in orderto make meaning. Goodnow maintains that drawing is an areawhere we have a chance to observe the way new equivalents aredeveloped, to see how modifications are made and at whichstage.

Finally, we emerge from looking at equivalents with a healthy respect for thesheer quantity of learning required of children Little of this learning seemsto be directed explicitly by adults, but children apparently invest a remarkabledegree of time and effort in observing the world around them and (to make apun) in drawing conclusions. (Goodnow 1977, p. 29)

Piaget and Inhelder (1966) consider that drawing is a "form ofsemiotic function halfway between symbolic play and themental image." (Piaget and Inhelder, p. 63)

Luquet (1927), is cited by Piaget & Inhelder (1966) as havingconclusively shown that until about 8 or 9 a child's drawing isessentially realistic in intention, though the child begins bydrawing what they know about a person or an object long beforethey can draw what they actually see. Piaget & Inhelder statethat the problem through the child's development is to describethe relationship between imaginal symbolism and the pre-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

26 J. FALLOWFIELD

operatory and operatory mechanisms of thought. Their studies"Indicate" that the mental images of the child at the pre-operatory level are almost exclusively static. It is not until thelevel of concrete operation (after seven to eight) that children arecapable of reproducing movements and transformations, and bythis stage the child can also participate in imagery movementsand transformations. It is concluded that the formation ofmental images cannot precede understanding.

A characteristic of perceptual development is the fact thatyoung children often focus on one aspect of the visual world at atime and frequently do not recognize the relationship that aparticular form has to a larger visual field. Piaget terms thiscentration. The opposite process is de-centration and decen-trated vision is the ability to see the particular in relation to thewhole. It is a complex skill and appears during the latteroperational period. Young children at the pre-operatory level ofthought tend to focus on the particular and to make decisions inthe qualitative realm with respect to it. Only later, when moreexperience is obtained and learning acquired are these decisionsmade on a more contextual basis.

In summary, the views of the three theorists presented hereare representative of the cognitive trend: The theories of Smith,Goodnow and Piaget illustrate the importance of providing acognitive framework for children's developmental stages in art.A theory which emphasizes the affective trend cannot take fullaccount of the conceptual and cognitive development of thechild.

The theories of Smith, Goodnow and Piaget demonstrate thestages and processes by which a child comes to representexperience and to make sense of the world. They show thatmaking art is one way of representing experience, one mode ofsymbolization in the repertoire of the child. A study of children'sdrawings not only reflects the level of their learning but also how

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART 27

they are learning. Imagemaking reflects the child's level ofunderstanding of the world.

The level of complexity in children's art increases as children mature, butthis is not to say that artistic learning is an automatic consequence ofmaturation. Rather, it could be maintained that instruction, providingchildren's developmental stages are taken into full account, far frominhibiting artistic learning as the "affective" exponents believed, couldactually facilitate it. Eisner (1972) maintains that to see qualitiesaesthetically is to have learned how to do so. From this latter position it isclearly instructive to attempt to assess children's responses to paintings: theremainder of this paper represents a review of current literature,substantially, the work of Machotka (ig66), Parsons Johnston andDurham (1978) and D'Onofrio and Nodine (1981). These papers aim toexplore the ways in which children respond to paintings with regard to theaesthetic criteria that they use to justify their preferences and the differingresponses observed at different stages of development. Each of the paperswill be discussed and details of the sample, methodology employed and theensuing results will be included. We conclude with a summary in which thestudies of Machotka, Parsons and D 'Onofrio will be compared. In thissection reference will be made to two other papers—Gardner and Gardner(1970) and Brunner (1975), which give interesting perspectives on thesubject of developmental trends in aesthetic response. Conclusions will thenbe drawn, based on the findings of these studies.

EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF CHILDREN'SRESPONSES TO PAINTING

Machotka (1966)

Machotka's study investigated aesthetic criteria in childhoodand justifications of preference. A total of 120 boys formed thissample (no reason is given why only boys were chosen), rangingfrom 6 to 12 years, with the special 18-year-old group as a "youngadult control from the same population". The subjects were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

28 J. FALLOWFIELD

upper middle-class French boys from a primary school in Parisand from a lycee in an adjacent suburb. There were fifteen boysin each group.

Fifteen colour reproductions of paintings (approx. 8V2 X 11inches) were chosen, representing a wide choice of content, styleand use of colour, from the Western tradition since theRenaissance. In an individual interview these reproductionswere shown to each child in groups of three, in such a way thateach painting was shown twice, each time with differentpaintings. As they were shown each presentation of a triad (atotal of ten triads in all) the child was asked first—whichpainting was liked best and second—which painting was likedleast and to give reasons for that choice. "Vague answers wereprobed until the child clarified what he was talking about."

Machotka's study attempted to tie aesthetic development to"intellectual" development using a Piagetian framework. Piaget(1947: 1950) distinguished three major stages in the develop-ment of intelligence:

a) that of preoperational thought, between 4 and 7 years inwhich classes of objects, of relations between them, of conserva-tion, are highly rudimentary;

b) that of concrete operations (ages 7 or 8 to 11 or 12) duringwhich classes become stable and the intellectual operations bywhich conversation is made possible become reversible; and

c) that of formal operations (after 11 or 12), in which theoperations characterizing the previous stage become fullymental, independent of concrete illustration, and "consequentlyhypothetico-deductive".

Machotka maintains that the transition between the preoper-ational and operational stages appears relevant to some changesin the child's aesthetic criteria. It could be assumed that insaying that a painting is "realistic" a child has to compare

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART 29

adequately the "image" in front of them with what they imaginethe appearance of the real object to be. Consequently, suchcriteria as contrast or harmony between colours, presupposingan operations comparison, may be expected to appear in thechild's repertoire only after their intellectual prerequisites havebeen mastered—that is, after 7.

Machotka formulated four hypotheses.1. Do criteria referring to content and colour precede those

referring to form?2. Does the criterion of realism first appear in the child's

repertory at age 7 or 8?3. Does realism increase in importance until eleven years?4. Do the other criteria where relations between elements are

important (harmony and contrast) also appear at 7 or 8 years?As regards content criteria, Machotka found that the child

related emotionally to the subject matter on two counts. First,there was the implication that the child identified with thesubject or activity represented: for example, perhaps he wouldlike to be doing what the picture portrayed or perhaps thepersons portrayed reminded him of his parents. Second, theother type of affectivity referred to the emotional character of thewhole picture; references being made to "atmosphere" or"character". The first count, it was concluded, characterizedchildren of all ages. The second count, was not found to appearuntil 12 years of age. Machotka concludes that:

A decrease in egocentrism occurs when the child thus externalizes the emotionhe feels: it occurs at 12 years, at about the age when, in Piaget's scheme, thefinal loosening of thought from its dependence on concrete data takes place,(p. 883)

At six years the criteria of content and colour accounted for87.4 per cent of the justifications, while at 11 years "realism" by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

30 J. FALLOWFIELD

itself surpassed colour in relative frequency. However it is statedthat realism made its "genuine appearance at 8 years".Machotka's study found that realism increased in importance upto the age of 11 years. As regards hypothesis four, where criteriaconcerning relations between elements are hypothesized asappearing at 7 or 8 years, Machotka supposed that harmony andcontrast depend upon the child "having reached the level ofoperational thought".

Machotka's analysis suggest three main developmental levelswhich correlate with Piaget's types of intellectual functioning.Up to the age of 7 or 8 years appreciation was based on "subjectmatter and colour" which appears to require no more thanpreoperational functioning. From about age 7 to 11 evaluation, isbased on "realistic representation, contrast and harmony ofcolours and clarity of presentation" which indicates operationalthinking. From about age 12 onwards, interest in style,composition, and affective tone appears "to necessitate formalthinking".

Parsons, Johnston and Durham (1978)

Parsons, Johnston and Durham's (1978) research was concernedwith investigating the nature of developmental stages inchildren's aesthetic responses. The study employed 156 studentsfrom grades one to twelve, aged from 6-17 years—thirteenstudents from each grade. (The sex of the students concernedwas not mentioned). Three large reproductions of "well known"paintings were shown to individual students and questions wereasked, with pains being taken to make the child feel at ease andemphasizing that there were no right or wrong answers.Discussions were "loosely structured" so as to facilitate explora-tion of points as deemed necessary.

The intention of the study was to seek a cognitive-developmental account of aesthetic response, although it was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART 31

stated that there was not an intention to apply to thinking aboutthe arts the stages—

described by Piaget or Kohlberg; to do so would be to treat paintings as if theywere objects for scientific or moral analysis, (p. 84)

Although the authors do not expand this issue by way ofexplanation, it could be maintained that a valid point is madehere in that to apply the stages described by Piaget or Kohlbergto the arts would be inappropriate and restrictive. However, thisview is in contrast to Machotka's (1966) study which, seeminglysuccessfully, applied a Piagetian framework to stages of aestheticdevelopment. Instead, Parsons' (1978) aim was to uncoverstages of response "to specifically aesthetic objects". Six topicswere identified that revealed developmental levels. Within thesetopics three or sometimes four stages were identified.

The first topic of "Semblance" was meant to cover the range ofpossible views concerning "how and whether a picture refers", or"what makes it a picture". The first stage within this topic istermed "Schematic Realism" where attention is focused more onsubject matter than anything else and the chief demand is that apainting be comprehensible: items should look "real" or "as theyare supposed to". Stage two is termed "Photographic Realism"and is characterized by a more precise set of expectations whichrequire a degree of decentring "because it takes account of whatcan be seen by anyone". In stage three the demand for realism isdropped. There is an increased awareness of not only the varietyof kinds of painting but also the intentions of the artist andresponses of the viewer. Parsons views this as an advance inperspective taking.

The second topic is "Subject Matter", or "what is referred to".Characteristic of stage one is that the child thinks that paintingsshould be about pleasant and interesting subjects. Parsonsregards this as a sign of relative egocentricity. The range ofsuitable subject matter expands in stage two to include much

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

32 J. FALLOWFIELD

that was previously thought unsuitable. Greater awareness of thevariety of attitudes possible with regard to subject matter isobserved in stage three. Parsons states that here "moralobjections are finally dropped as irrelevant" to the subjectmatter of good art, whether it be violent, cruel or tragic in tone.

The third topic is that of "Feelings"—the essential factor herebeing the kinds and sources of emotions influential in theaesthetic response. As might be expected, in stage one, the childis guided by overt subject matter. The child focuses on particularcharacters in the painting one at a time and attributes feelings tothem. With stage two comes a new understanding that differentpeople may respond in different ways to a painting. Stage threegeneralizes beyond the feelings of individual characters to theemotional impact of the painting as a whole.

The fourth topic is "Colour" and Parsons centred this topic onthe pleasure factor that colour elicits. Once again, as might beexpected, bright, gay, distinct colours are preferred. "Brightnessis preferred to dullness." It is concluded that these preferencesare egocentrically based. "It's a good colour" is synonymouswith "I like the colour". Whereas, in stage two, colours areconsidered good if they are appropriate to the subject repre-sented. In stage three there is a fuller sense of the appropriate-ness of the colour, extending to "the whole painting, to its mood,or theme, or the intention of the artist". But what is new here isthe view that colours can "express emotion or mood directly,without the necessity for realism in every case".

The fifth topic is concerned with the "Artists' Properties" andthe children's views of what makes a good artist. In stage onechildren's responses imply that anyone who has the physicalequipment could paint well. However, in stage two, attributes ofthe "artist himself were dominantly mentioned", such as manualskill, hard work, patience and so on. The general feeling is thatthe harder a painting is to do, the better the work. Characteristic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART 33

of stage three is the fact that the children "distinguish mentalfrom other abilities as essential" Parsons says that here there is"a stress on the cognitive, rather than the experiential oraffective, results of these activities": for example the artist wouldhave to recognize reality and think about the method ofrepresenting it. A fourth stage is included here and the mainfeature, of it is that the affective qualities are emphasized, asopposed to other "cognitive" qualities, as essential to the artist.Experience, in other words, has played a vital part in the artists'creativity.

The final topic is "Judgement". As might be anticipated—personal preferences characterize stage one. In stage two,children are concerned with the amount of time and effort thathas gone into the production of a work. Account is also taken ofmanual skill involved and the degree of detail and realism. Thecriteria for stage three revolve around the central issue ofwhether a painting is expressive and this could be thought of intwo ways: either cognitively, in that it conveys a message oraffectively, in that it expresses an emotion. A feature of the finalstage—four—is the interpretation of "how, what and whethersomething has been expressed".

Parsons concludes that with regard to the above stated stages"a cognitive—developmental approach along these lines is veryplausible".

D'Onofrio and Nodine 1981

In their study of children's responses to paintings, D'Onofrioand Nodine attempted to investigate Parsons' (1977) theorywhich implied that:

the arguments used by children when they evaluate paintings actually reflecttheir respective level or mode of aesthetic appreciation, (p. 14)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

34 J. FALLOWFIELD

Very briefly, Parsons (1977) described the evolution of a set ofresponses which, initially, were based on the children's personalidiosyncracies, preferences and experiences—"AestheticIdiosyncracy". Next a painting is judged using criteria such asdraughtsmanship and conventional representations of the world—"Aesthetic Realism". A feature of the third level—"AestheticFallacy" was that the children believed that the artist's intentionswere sole, sufficient criteria for judging a painting, not consider-ing that "artists also strive to be intelligible". At the fourth andfinal level—"Aesthetic Perspective", children take the artist'spoint of view, using the artist's "formal decisions" as "evidence" forjustifying their aesthetic response.

In D'Onofrio and Nodine's study, the sample to which an"aesthetic judgement" task was administered consisted of a totalof fifteen children (the sex of the children was not mentioned)ranging from 4V2 to 15 years of age. All were educated inPhiladelphia public schools and the children's academic per-formance on standardized tests ranged from average to aboveaverage.

Four reproductions of paintings were chosen which repre-sented a wide stylistic range. Pictures were chosen whichrequired "a particular kind of response which integratedaffective content with stylistic features". It was thought that inthis way children would evince strategies for explaining, theartists' procedures when confronted with these "artists' uncon-ventional expressions". The children were each asked a series ofeight open-ended questions designed to stimulate responses toproblems such as "(5) why the artists did something unconven-tional or unexpected" and "(8) whether the artist may have hadspecial reasons for depicting people as he did".

D'Onofrio and Nodine's findings show a parallel withParsons' description of the four levels of aesthetic response, inthat a developmental sequence is observed. Also Parsons'hypothesis "received empirical support":

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART 35

Not only did the children use increasingly abstract justifications for theirpreferences in paintings as they got older, but their ability to take the point ofview of the artist also increased, (p. 18)

It is also suggested that there are theoretical and educationalimplications in the development from an egocentric responsetowards a "decentred" one and that the sequence implies certaindevelopmental milestones. D'Onofrio and Nodine assert thataesthetic responses occur within a cognitive framework.

The very same intellectual processes used to analyse and interpret significant,underlying relationships in the objective world would seem to apply toaesthetic evaluation, (p. 22)

This assertion that the "very same intellectual processes" areinvolved in both the comprehension of relationships "in theobjective world" and aesthetic evaluation would appear tocontrast with Parsons' (1978) intention to uncover stages ofresponse to "specifically aesthetic" objects. The inference couldbe drawn from D'Onofrio and Nodine's conclusion that study of"intellectual" stages of development (as described comprehen-sively by Piaget) would, far from being "inappropriate", insteadpositively illumine study of aesthetic development.

SUMMARY

The three papers here described have as their starting point theassumption that when children evaluate paintings their argu-ments reflect their respective level, or mode of aestheticappreciation. Moreover, all the studies assume a cognitivedevelopmental approach towards aesthetic response, althoughParsons differs from Machotka and D'Onofrio in that he statesthat he did not wish to specifically apply Piaget's levels ofintellectual functioning, for reasons previously outlined. How-ever certain parallels can be drawn between the various findings

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

36 J. FALLOWFIELD

and this will be discussed within a loosely based Piagetianframework.

All three papers demonstrate that children's aesthetic de-velopment progresses in definite stages. Brunner (1975), in astudy investigating the criteria used to evaluate representationalvisual art at different ages, hypothecated that there wascorrespondingly, a system of stages in the development ofaesthetic judgement. In attempting to show that people canmake judgements about art, Brunner aimed to show:

that structures found in notions children have about art and those that adultsor even "art experts" have are not merely different from each other, but areimprovements, are more differentiated, more able to understand a greatervariety of art and to understand more about it. (p. 5)

The study posed the question as to whether some of theevaluations that form part of the aesthetic experience are sharedby people and develop in a systematic way. The study involvedsubjects aged 8, 12 and 16 years and "adults". They were shownfour pairs of postcard reproductions of well known paintings,sculptures and works of architecture. The subjects were asked tostate which they considered the better work of art and to explainwhy. Evidence was found that evaluative criteria do tend tochange with age and that older subjects were more likely to usethe kinds of criteria characteristic of the more advancedhypothetical stages in the development of aesthetic judgementsthan younger subjects.

Although Machotka, Parsons and D'Onofrio differ in their"labelling" of stages of aesthetic response there are certainfundamental areas of agreement. All agree that the childresponds initially to the colour and subject matter of a painting.Similarly, Gardner and Gardner (1970), investigating develop-mental trends in sensitivity to painting style, found that whenchildren (aged 6, 8, 11-12 and 14 years) were exposed to two

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART 37

reproductions of works by artist A and were then asked to selectan additional work by A from an array containing single worksby A, B, C, and D it was found that for younger children sortingby style was synonymous with sorting by similarity and thatsubject matter was their principal means of assessing similarity.The Gardners (1970) in a subsequent study, hypothesized thatolder subjects would have a stronger tendency to grouppaintings by style because, in the initial study they concludedthat "adolescents" had:

a more flexible method of judging similarity and so were able to look beyondwhat was being represented to the manner in which it was represented.(1970, p. 12)

However it was found that when subject matter and paintingstyle are alternative means of grouping paintings, subjects atdifferent age levels tend to group by the subject matterrepresented.

Contrary to what was hypothesized, older subjects do not evince a strongernatural tendency to classify by style. (1970, p. 14)

The study concluded that "most individuals" consider paintings"initially and perhaps primarily in terms of the subject matterrepresented.

The child responds to certain isolated elements or characterswithin the picture personally, often, as Parsons (1977: 1979)states, attributing states, feelings to the characters. Bright, gaycolours with pleasant suitable subject matter are preferred. Theearliest aesthetic response could therefore be said to beegocentrically based; in fact "good" is synonymous with "I likeit". Parsons terms this level "Aesthetic Idiosyncracy" and theobservable factors of aesthetic response at this level appear toindicate pre-operational intellectual functioning.

The next stage of aesthetic response has the child respondingto realistic representation of subject matter. Parsons states that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

38 J. FELLOWFIELD

in stage two of "Artists' Properties" the child often makesreference to the artist's manual skill and "draughtsmanship".Machotka finds too, that at this level there is concern about therelations between elements within a painting, such as "contrastand harmony of colours". A certain maturing of aestheticresponse can be observed here, despite the preference for"conventional representations of the world", which is indicative ofoperational thinking.

Egocentric thought fades during the concrete operationalstage, though it is maintained that the final release fromegocentric thought occurs when the child is able to take anotherperspective, an alternative view of the world. When a child isthus able to decentre their thinking it could be regarded assignalling the onset of formal thinking. Parsons termed this finallevel "Aesthetic Perspective" because the child is able to lookand identify within a picture the artist's "formal decisions"which makes the artist's point of view intelligible, and thus usethe "information" as a basis for judging the significance of apiece of work.

Therefore, as D'Onofrio and Nodine point out, it could berightfully concluded that aesthetic responses do occur within acognitive framework. The same processes that are used to "makesense" of the everyday world would seem to apply to aestheticevaluations, too.

A major problem in art education could be said to be how farwe can help the child to develop. The awareness provided by aconcise balanced cognitive/affective framework could lead to aplanned programme of help by the teacher. Eisner (1972)maintains that the tendency to separate art from intellect andthought from feeling has been a source of difficulty for the field ofart education, concluding that: "Such a concept does justice toneither art nor education."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART 39

References

Aldrich, V.C. (1963). Philosophy of Art, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Aspin, D. (1983). Assessment and Evaluation in the Arts, in M. Ross: (ed.) The

Aesthetic Imperative, Oxford: Pergamon Press.Assessment of Performance Unit (1983). Discussion Document on the Assessment

of Aesthetic Development through Engagement in the Creative and PerformingArts.

Barrett, M. (1979). Art Education—A Starategy for Course Design, London:Heinemann Educational.

Blackie, J. (1967). Inside the Primary School, H.M.S.O. London.Broudy, H.S. (1960) The Case for Art Education, in Art Education, Jan. 1960.Broudy, H.S. (1972). Enlightened Cherishing, University of Illinois Press.Brunner, C. (1975). Aesthetic Judgement, Criteria used to Evaluate Representational

Art at Different Ages, Doctoral Thesis. Columbia University.Butterworth, G. (ed) (1977). The Child's Representation of the World, New York:

Plenum.Carline, R. (1968). Draw they Must: A History of the Teaching and Examining of

Art, London: Edward Arnold.Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (1982). The Arts in Schools: Principles, Practice

and Provision, London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.Chapman, L. (1978). Approaches to Art in Education, Harcourt Brace Jovano-

vich, U.S.A.D'Onofrio, A. & C.F. Nodine (1981). Children's responses to Painting, In Studies

in Art Education, Jan. 1981.Eisner, Elliott W. (1972). Educating Artistic Vision, New York: Macmillan.Eisner, E.W. and D.W. Ecker (1966). Readings in Art Education, Waltham,

Massachusetts: Blaisdell Publishing Co.Field, D. (1963). Painting in Studies in Education. The Arts, and Current Tendencies

in Education, University of London, Institute of Education.Field, D. (1973). Art and Art Education, in D. Field: and J. Newick: (eds.), The

Study of Education and Art.Field, D. and J. Newick (eds) (1983). The Study of Education and Art, London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Flavell, J .H. (1963). The Development Psychology of Jean Piaget, New York;

London: D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc.Frank, L.K. (1960). Role of the Arts in Education, in Eisner: E.W. and Ecker:

D.W. op. cit.Gardner, H. and J. Gardner (1970). Developmental Trends in Sensitivity to

Painting Style and Subject-Matter, in Studies in Art Education, Vol. 12,No. 1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

40 J. FELLOWFIELD

Gentle, K. (1985). Children and Art Teaching, 5-13 Series. London: CroomHelm.

Goodnow, J. (1977). Children's Drawing, Oxford: Open Books.Heyfron, V. The Relevance of Art Education, in Ross: M. (ed) op. cit.Hirst, Paul (1974). Knowledge and the Curriculum, London: Routledge & Kegan

Paul.Holt, D.K. (1983). Aesthetic Education, Research and Visual Perception, in Art

Education, May 1983.Hospers, John (1969). Introductory Readings in Aesthetics, New York: Free Press.Housen, A. (1980). What is Beyond, or Before the Lecture Tour? A Study of Aesthetic

Modes of Understanding, in Art Education, Jan. 1980.Hoyland, M. (1970). Art for children, London: Macmillan.Ives, S.W. (1984). The Development of Expressivity in Drawing, in British Journal

of Educational Psychology, 45.Jameson, K. (1971). Junior School Art, London: Studio Vista.Kaelin, E.F. (1964). Aesthetics and the Teaching of Art, in E.W. Eisner: & D.W.

Eckwer, op. cit.Kellogg, R. (1970). Analyzing Children's Art, Muller.Langer, S. (1957). Problems of Art, New York: Scribners.Leicestershire Education Committee (1982). Learning Through Art in the

Primary School, Doden, T. (ed.).Lowenfeld, V. & Brittain (1964). Creative and Mental Growth, 4th ed. London:

Collier Macmillan.Machotka, P. (1966). Aesthetic Criteria in Childhood. Justifications of Preference, in

Child Development, Vol. 37.Matthews, J. (1984). Children Drawing: Are Young Children Really Scribbling, in

Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 17.Open University O.U. (1976). A100 4 The Artist and Society.Open University O.U. (1976). A100 15 and 16 Form and Meaning.Parsons, M, M. Johnston and R. Durham (1978). Developmental Stages in

Children's Aesthetic Responses, in Journal of Aesthetic Edn, Vol. 12.Pickard, P.M. (1970). Psychology of Developing Children Harlow: LongmanPiaget, J. and B. Inhelder (1969). The Psychology of the Child, London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul, Originally published in French 1966Translated by Helen Weaver 1969.

Reid, L.A. Assessment and Aesthetic Education in ROSS: M. (ed.) op. cit.Reid, L.A. (1973). A Study in Aesthetic, Greenwood.Richardson, Marion (1948). Art and the Child, University of London Press.Ross, M. (ed.) (1981). The Aesthetic Imperative Relevance and Responsibility in Arts'

Education, Oxford: Pergamon Press.Smith, N.R. (1982). The Visual Arts in Early Childhood Education: Development

and the Creation of Meaning, in SPODEK: B. (ed.) Handbook of Researchin Early Childhood Education. New York: Free Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART 41

Smith, Ralph (ed.) (1971). Aesthetics and Problems of Education, University ofIllinois Press.

Swanwick, Prof. Keith (1982). The Arts in Education: Dreaming or Wide Awake?Special Professorial Lecture. Unit. of Lond. Institute of Education(Nov).

Tamburrini, J. (1981). Why Young Children Paint and Draw as They Do, Paper 32in ROBERTS: M. & TAMBURRINI: J . Child Development 0-5Holmer MacDougal.

Tamburrini, J., J . Willig and C. Buttler: (1984). Children's Conceptions ofWriting in The Development of Children's Imaginative Writing, COWIE:Helen (ed.) London: Croom Helm.

Taunton, M. (1983). Questioning Strategies to Encourage Young Children to Talkabout Art, in Art Education July.

Weitz, Morris (1961). The Nature of Art, in E.W. Eisner: and D.W. Ecker:op. cit.

Witkin, R. (1974). The Intelligence of Feeling, London: Heinemann Education-als.

Wooff, Terence (1976). Developments in Art Teaching, London: Open Books.Zeller, T. (1983). Let's Teach Art With Originals, in Art Education, Jan. 1983.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014